AT&T "4g"

[3G Guy]

Is anyone else dissatisfied with AT&T's definition of 4G? They used to be all about the fastest in the most areas. Now its all about a different definition of 4G depending on the FCC licences they hold, and having two different 4G technologies. When I worked for them they claimed that HSDPA+ (at the time T-Mobile), was not 4G. Now they embrace it as 4G. They chose to only get regional 700 Mhz licenses in certain areas. I am dissapointed that they changed their own definition of 4G. LTE is the fastest, and they admit that.
Has marketing come before the engineering facts? Have they become politicians who change definitions to suit their cause?

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using HowardForums

[johnhere]

http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-30/at-t-amassing-spectrum-deals-in-catch-up-bid-with-verizon.html

I was worried about the regional 700 license but it appears AT&T has around 2b for plans to buy spectrum that should help them get a nationwide lte network going(providing approval)..html

[formercanuck]

Personally, I never liked the '4g' moniker as there aren't any specifics tied to it, and the ITU basically said 'whatever'.

HSDPA+ != HSPA+, however, they have chose to label their entrie HSPA network as HSPA+, and state that areas that have enough backhaul (even if it capacity is overwhelmed) is considered 4G. A good example of that is San Francisco.

They do differenciate 4G HSPA+ and 4G LTE, except when they're 'attempting' to brag on '4g' coverage.
Personally, it doesn't bother me a whole lot (BS'ing ticks me off though!), as people accepted WiMAX as '4g', and HSPA+ in my area has typically blown WiMAX away. I've had best of 14Mbps down and +3Mbps upload. While it isn't as fast as LTE, its quite respectable.
Lastly - YES - Marketing (and lawyers) have come before the engineering facts.

[Squid7085]

I have been happy with AT&T's "4G" that is done well and speeds are great. What I do have a problem with is all the stuff they are labeling "4G" that clearly isn't much better than Edge. It is apparent that if AT&T tries, they can really do something great, but the whole "4G" thing seems to be 90% marketing 10% execution and upgrades.

[i0wnj00]

I'm not happy about the marketing, especially AT&Ts recent commercial claiming they have the largest 4G network in America which claims to cover 22,000 more towns than Verizon. Right when I saw this commercial I was just about at the point where I would rather watch football game (not being a fan of the sport to start with) than watch a bunch of junk from a marketing team. If anything, positive is I can actually use my device in places I will use it the most.

[johnhere]

You don't have at least one fav football team? I've got to watch the redskins.

Yeah the commercial is def misleading. I'm worried AT&T may not take the rural areas serious enough.

[ggore]

This is the most egregious marketing lie that AT&T has ever come up with, so blatantly false it's laughable if you live in one of the many areas in the US where there is 100 miles of EDGE between you and the nearest 3G or HSPA+:

Attachment 84688

[i0wnj00]

You don't have at least one fav football team? I've got to watch the redskins.

Yeah the commercial is def misleading. I'm worried AT&T may not take the rural areas serious enough.

I'm more worried about T-Mobile USA than AT&T. Large swaths of their recent expansion into rural areas remain on GPRS/EDGE and capped the available amount of roaming data.
I'm not sure, if T-Mobile USA will even upgrade to the PCS HSPA+ standard they plan for urban areas.

AT&T has HSPA+ in Vermont (by definition a largely rural state) so I'm not worried about them as much as T-Mobile.
Even with HSPA+, the AT&T coverage map isn't to be trusted.

[hi_i_am_wade]

I too am dissatisfied with AT&T's definition of 4G. HOWEVER, HSPA+ is actually faster than LTE. The advantage of LTE is less latency. I read an article on anandtech.com about this (can't find it now) that had the HSPA+ phone slightly faster than a LTE phone in same market.

[silentjudge]

That's more of a deployment problem as opposed to a problem with the technology. LTE when deployed properly will achieve higher throughput than HSPA+. Especially since AT&T only has 21mbps HSPA+ and not 42mbps HSPA+.

In some markets AT&T is also bandwidth constrained on LTE - 700mhz due to not having 10x10 spectrum.

Sent from my LG Nitro HD

[Jordan T]

I was at the Verizon store in Missoula MT (Southgate Mall) yesterday and did a speed test on their demo Droid RAZR. It got just over 6mbps down and just over 4mbps up. To compare, I ran the same speed test (both Speedtest.net apps to their Helena, MT server) on my AT&T iPad and I got just over 4mbps down and just UNDER 2mbps up. Not substantially different, IMHO. I've seem better downstream in other areas on AT&Than that test on Verizon. No doubt, LTE is a bit better. But the coverage is spotty and limited to just a handful of major towns.

[formercanuck]

When I run a speedtest here in Santa Clarita on HSPA+ at the mall, I typically get 8-11Mbps down and 1Mbps

[ilvla2]

I max out around 9000 down and 1100 up here in Mendocino County (and next door in Lake and Sonoma Counties), though the average is 4000-6000 down and 1000 up. It used to be an average of 6-7 down, but the speeds seem to have been going down lately in Northwestern California, AT&T needs to order up some more backhaul I do think.

[hwertz]

I was at the Verizon store in Missoula MT (Southgate Mall) yesterday and did a speed test on their demo Droid RAZR. It got just over 6mbps down and just over 4mbps up. To compare, I ran the same speed test (both Speedtest.net apps to their Helena, MT server) on my AT&T iPad and I got just over 4mbps down and just UNDER 2mbps up. Not substantially different, IMHO. I've seem better downstream in other areas on AT&Than that test on Verizon. No doubt, LTE is a bit better. But the coverage is spotty and limited to just a handful of major towns.

a) 1.5x the speed isn't a big difference? if you were showing hspa is faster than evdo it'd be a huge difference. b) vzw's 4g varies a lot probably depending on backhaul. I've seen over 40mbps in new jersey, over 20mbps in madison. Iowa City? 6-10mbps usually (20mbps max). There's no gigabit lines laying around here 8-)

I think la belling an upgraded 3g technology is false advertising and (now that they are ALSO using 4G LTE) excessively confusing. But I won't complain about any carrier upgrading their speeds, and an upgraded 3G network is plenty fast.

[buckspaul]

The fake 4g hspda*att is tooting is ridiculous I rarely get over 2mb in rural area with low backhaul while in non lte urban areas im seeing about 8mg. Umm last time i checked its 3.5g how the hell are they getting away with that. Same goes for Tmobile.